Thursday, June 19, 2008

NOW, or forever hold your impeach

Dave Lindorff at Counterpunch notes that the Dennis Kucinich articles of impeachment have not made much news. Lindorff succinctly lays out the reasons for impeachment:

As impeachment advocates, including Rep. Kucinich, have pointed out, unless this president and vice president are impeached by the current Congress, any—and probably every—future president will feel empowered by unchallenged precedent

to ignore laws passed by the Congress,
to go to war without Congressional approval,
to spy on Americans in violation of the law,
to ignore court orders,
to abrogate international treaties,
and to lie to Congress and the American people.

Unless Congress asserts its rights under Article I, it will no longer even be a co-equal branch of government, but instead will have been reduced to nothing more than a debating society.

If lying about ten bl*w j*bs were worth impeachment proceedings, then please, 'splain to my why, PLEEZE Lucy, the thirty-five articles of impeachment introduced by Representative Dennis Kucinich (D. Oh) are not worth a hearing?

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Cheaper to hire thumb suckers and pundits

From the transcript of Bill Moyers Journal, "Selling the War" comes this revealing Q&A exchange. What it reveals about present day journalists, journalism, pundits, reporters and reporting is sad.


BILL MOYERS: If we journalists get it wrong on the facts what is there to be right about?


PETER BEINART: Well I think that's a good point, but the argument in the fall of 2002 was not mostly about the facts it was about a whole series of ideas about what would happen if we invaded.


BILL MOYERS: What I'm trying to get at is how does the public sort all of this out from out there beyond the beltway. Far more people saw you, see Bill Kristol on television, than will ever read the Associated Press reports or the Knight Ridder reporters. Isn't there an imbalance then on what the public is going to perceive about a critical issue of life and death like, like war.


...

WALTER ISAACSON: One of the great pressures we're facing in journalism now is it's a lot cheaper to hire thumb suckers and pundits and have talk shows on the air than actually have bureaus and reporters. And in the age of the internet when everybody's a pundit, we're still gonna need somebody there to go talk to the colonels, to be on the ground in Baghdad and stuff and that's very expensive.


So, journalism's expensive stuff.


DAN RATHER: Reporting is hard. The substitute for reporting far too often has become let's just ring up an expert. Let's see. These are experts on international armaments. And I'll just go down the list here and check Richard Perle.


As the 43rd POTUS would say: "Reportin's hard work!"

So, rather than report, just call up a war partisan.

Global War on Wages

The NYT reports that the glow of the Red Dragon seems to be somewhat less alluring these days, certainly to global manufacturing corporations because for China -


In coastal provinces with ready access to ports, even unskilled workers now earn $120 a month for a 40-hour workweek, and often considerably more; wages in inland provinces, where transport is costlier, are somewhat lower but also rising fast. While Chinese wages are still less than $1 an hour, factory workers in Vietnam earn as little as $50 a month for a 48-hour workweek, including Saturdays.


Texhong estimates that average labor costs for each textile worker in China will rise 16 percent this year, including increases in benefits costs — on top of a 12 percent increase last year. New regulations are making it harder for companies to avoid paying for benefits, like pensions, further increasing labor costs.


And what's even worse (about China) than all that:


China is also phasing out its practice of charging lower corporate tax rates for foreign-owned companies. By contrast, Vietnam still offers foreign investors a corporate tax rate of zero for the first four years, and half the usual rate of 10 percent for the next four years.



As a result of these manufacturing cost savings in Vietnam:


Foreign direct investment ... over the last three years [has] soared more than eightfold in Vietnam.


A popular saying among Western investors is that Vietnam is the next China. Cambodia, with even lower wages attracting garment manufacturers, is called the next Vietnam.



Here's an eye-catching point:

Vietnam’s biggest selling point for many companies is its political stability. Like China, it has a nominally Communist one-party system that crushes dissent, keeps the military under tight control and changes government policies and leaders slowly.


But, I thought we fought to Vietnam war to bring them freedom and democracy. And so we wouldn't have to fight the commies in San Diego.


Communism means more stability,” Mr. Shu, the chief financial officer of Texhong, said, voicing a common view among Asian executives who make investment decisions. At least a few American executives agree, although they never say so on the record.


Democracies like those in Thailand and the Philippines have proved more vulnerable to military coups and instability.

While the NYT report fixates on the impact of these trends to prices on products consumed in the U.S., it fails to discuss higher unemployment in the U.S. as a result of out-sourcing, and higher inflation in the U.S. as a result of borrowing to finance the never-ending occupations of Iran and Afghanistan.

Democrats to back down

Reuters reports that "Democrats in the Congress, who came to power last year on a call to end the combat in Iraq" are about to cave and pass the Iraq & Afghanistan never-ending military occupation funding bill with no conditions for withdrawing U.S. troops. The $165 billion new war money injection is assumed to be enough for about a year, and commits troops to "staying the course" well into the next President's first year of office.


This infusion of war money will take the total amount committed to these wars to over $800 billion.


There was a way for the Democrats to have tried to stop the war; to do the job they were elected to office to do. The matter is summarized in the words of Senator Clairborne Pell [D-RI] spoke in 1971 after the conclusion of John Kerry's testimony before Congress.



This war was really just as wrong, immoral, and unrelated to our national interests 5 years ago as it is today

... At that time the word "peace" was a dirty word. It was tied in with "appeasement" and ... that sort of thing ...


The problem is that the majority of the people in the Congress still don't agree with the view that you and we have. As the chairman pointed out, and as you know as a student of political science, whenever we wanted to end this war, we could have ended this war if the majority of us had used the power of the purse strings. That was just as true 5 years ago as it is today.


I don't think it is a question of guts. We didn't have the desire to do that and I am not sure the majority has the desire to do that yet. Whenever we want to as a Congress, we could do it. We can't start an action, but we can force an action with the purse strings.


So, my fellow Americans, ask not what will Senator Obama do, ask not even how Senator Obama will vote. Ask what Senator Obama will do to put a stop to this bill.

Truth slips out from time to time

Jeff Cohen has a nice tribute to Izzy Stone at Common Dreams, calling Izzy "the legendary blogger", and "the ultimate un-embedded reporter". He links to a section of I. F. Stone: A Portrait, by Andrew Patner, with this refreshing Stone quote:

The truth slips out from time to time, and enough of it slips out that there’s a piece there for any reporter who takes the time.

Note the contrast between Stone's philosophy contemporary pundits' reliance on government spin (propaganda) and RNC talking points (more propaganda).

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

The Axis of Energy

Over at Pen and Sword, Jeff Huber's post Has Iran Stopped Nuking Its Wife posits:


At the end of the day, all the scare talk about Iran getting nuclear weapons is a red herring. Today's global power struggle today is about who gets to squeeze the last dime out of the last drop of oil in the planet, and who controls how much the rest of us have to pay for whatever replaces oil as the new energy source.


If, when the last oil well coughs up dust, Iran has a viable nuclear industry and is a full partner in an axis of energy that includes Russia and China, then Dick and Dubya's big oil buddies will be riding bicycles to work.

Huber's conclusion gives a credible context to the secrecy that shrouded Cheney's 2001 meeting with the energy task force (denied by industry officials into November of 2005) and would further help explain why Exxon Mobil corp plans to sell off its gas stations.

Monday, June 16, 2008

For the sake of the Children

This Washington Post op-ed piece by former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor raised my blood pressure. I'm posting the entire piece, but where the once "most powerful woman in the world" admonishes us to do some things for our young, I'll offer an alternative take.


What We Owe Our Young

What We Gave Our Country

By Sandra Day O'Connor and James R. Jones
Monday, June 16, 2008; A19


Idealistic young voters have turned out in record numbers this year -- and not a moment too soon. How our next president represents the interests of young Americans will define not only his legacy but that of an entire generation of political leaders.


Idealistic voters turned out in record numbers in 2000 -- but it was too late. How the president we, the Supreme Court appointed, came to represent the interests of all Americans has defined not only his legacy, but that of the entire Republican party.


The standard Washington model for rewarding influential constituencies is an agenda of targeted spending, tax breaks or regulatory measures. Traditional patronage, however, will not suffice when it comes to preparing for the approaching tsunami of retirement and health-care spending.


The standard Republican model for rewarding influential constituencies is an agenda of ever-increasing defense spending, tax cuts for large corporations, large financial institutions, and wealthy individuals, deregulation of corporations, bailouts for financial and other institutions "too large to fail" and regulatory measures designed to imprison and disempower poor people and persons of color. Traditional patronage, however, will not suffice when it comes to preparing for the approaching tsunami of dollar devaluation, inflation, the ever-increasing likelihood world's reserve currency reverting away from the dollar, the collapse of the banking and mortgage banking industries, and the cost of overfunding the military-industrial-congressional-infotainment complex.


The Government Accountability Office and many, many others have documented the magnitude of the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid bills that will come due over the next several decades. Even if every dollar of wealth of every millionaire in the United States were magically diverted to pay these costs, 80 percent of the unfunded liabilities forecast for these three programs would remain on the books.


So-called radical-liberal authors and many, many others have documented the magnitude of the costs of the war and war-profiteering bills plus the accrued interest on the national deficit that will come due over the next several decades.


Social Security Advisory Board Chairman Sylvester J. Schieber has found that honoring today's promises to tomorrow's retirees could put the living standards of working households on a path of decline by the mid-2020s, according to a groundbreaking study in the Milken Institute Review. Under this scenario, today's high school students might never experience a year in the workforce when their tax rates would not rise.


Social Security Advisory Board Chairman Sylvester J. Schieber has found someone to confirm his a priori belief that honoring todays promises to tomorrow's retirees "could" put the living standards of working households on a path of decline by the mid-2020s. This totally overlooks the reality that the federal government's fudging of inflation and unemployment statistics has presently put reduced the living standards of the majority of today's workers AND retirees. Under current trends, and coupled with the national security hazard of outsourcing virtually all of America's industry to lower-cost countries, many of today's high school students might never experience a year in the workforce when they are employed in any sector of the economy other than the "service" sectors.


Far more troubling outcomes are at least as plausible. Rather than raise taxes or modify benefits, our leaders could continue to follow the path of least resistance, shifting even greater burdens onto the young and endangering the living standards of everyone else in the process. Brookings Institution senior scholar Isabel Sawhill, writing in this month's Democracy Journal, warns of "realistic" budget deficits so large that by 2017, annual interest payments on the national debt would total $500 billion -- three times the amount of annual war spending in Iraq.


Far more troubling outcomes are at least as plausible. Rather than raise taxes on the wealthy by implementing a truly progressive tax structure, or eliminating tax loop holes that allow our largest and most profitable corporations to escape the heavy burden of any taxes at all in some of their most profitable years, or reduce expenditures on military hardware in an ever-escalating arms race with ourselves with which we never can seem to keep our defenses ahead of where our offensive strike capabilities will be by the time enterprising hi-tech workers or high-security clearance workers with dual citizenship with that nation which cannot be named critically, pass along the offensive strike capabilities state secrets, we can expect our leaders to follow the path of least resistance, and fund programs to build rocket ships to Mars, where they can escape the mess they have left behind before the lights begin to dawn upon the dimly aware.


A Brookings Institute "scholar" warns of "realistic" budget deficits so large, that by 2017, annual interest payments on the national deficit would total $500 billion -- three times the amount of annual war spending in Iraq. Although, in 2006, the annual interest payments on the national deficit totaled $406 billion of your money. Furthermore, under the present administration has willfully failed to include ANY amount of annual war spending in either Iraq or Afghanistan, which is perhaps not the way you would make out a budget, but then, how many of you are MBA Presidents, plus commander's in chief?


Among the likely casualties of such recklessness would be the very financial markets whose stability underpins the soundness of our private retirement system. And given the growing interdependence of the developed and developing worlds, and the advancing fiscal fragility of our aging allies in Asia and Europe, an American financial crisis could produce aftershocks that would rock the foundations of global prosperity.


Among the likely casualties of such profligate spending will be the very financial markets whose ever onward and upwards growth (in terms of non-inflation adjusted dollars) reflects the Federal Reserve's uncanny ability to reduce interest rates whenever it appears a bubble is about to burst, or to print a whole bunch more money to inject into the system, so that, for instance, the President's brother and then governor of Florida, could shortly before the Enron scandal broke, buy a large amount of Enron stock for the Florida State Teacher's Pension fund, and other large pension funds could invest in subprime mortgage tranches with notational values in excess of $50 trillion dollars, which has already seriously undermined the private pension systems of some large corporations (but fortunately for retired Supreme Court Justices, not any federal government pension systems).


And given our nation's dependence on the developed and developing worlds to manufacture things no longer made in America, and the world's abhorrence of the Bush doctrine of preemptive military strikes on non-nuclear nations with lots of oil reserves, the world's fears of the weakness of the U.S. dollar, and the world's keen understanding that a credit based consumer economy, such as the U.S. has had for many years now, is unsustainable, and that in order to minimize the shockwaves from the foreseeable perpetual American financial crises, our allies in Asia and Europe are disassociating themselves from us, and making trade agreements among themselves to which we have ever less say. We are not being invited to the party as much anymore, when before, the party could not be held without us.


Our government was founded on the principle that the legitimacy of law derives from the consent of the governed. Today's youths and future generations have not been consulted in the writing of our current social contract. Yet they soon may face financial burdens that most voters would find intolerable.


The present Bush administration was founded on the principle that the Clinton administration had wiped out the legitimacy of having a Democratic President for at least four years. We all agreed to it. All five of us. And all nine of us agreed that none of us would retire until the end of the Bush administration's first term of office. The voters of 2000 were not consulted in the electing of the present administration. Yet they already face financial burdens that voters from previous decades would find intolerable.


As we approach this vast expansion of spending, precipitated by a combination of aging baby boomers and abnormally high health costs, it is time to consult our young. That is exactly what we hope to do through the Youth Entitlement Summit taking place today and tomorrow on Capitol Hill.


As we approach the end of the most wanton expansion of deficits, illegal wars, unconstitutional wire taps, illegal torture, continual shredding of the bill of rights, precipitated by a combination of an ever dwindling number of corporate media outlets, all of which supported Bush's war and excluded voices of dissent, a nation made ever dumber by TV pundits with an overt radical Republican agenda, aging infrastructures, violent weather occurrences which are predicted by the inconvenient truth of global warming, it is time for you all to show your altruism.


It's time that you fixed it ... for the sake of the children. And in so doing, that you let any of my and my fellow Supreme Court Justices culpability for the current state of disaffairs slip rapidly out of sight, down the forgotten memory hole.


The youth activists assembling for this meeting know that although 41 percent of Americans are younger than 30, their political clout is inherently limited. Despite turning out in record numbers this year, voters ages 18 to 29 have accounted for only 13 percent of the presidential primary electorate. In the future, demographics will relegate youths to an ever-shrinking electoral minority.


All I am saying, is give these [youth] a chance. Entrust it all to the under 30 set. Otherwise, you will have no one to blame it on, except yourselves. In the future, demographics will relegate youths to an ever-shrinking electoral minority, UNLESS OF COURSE, you decide to let old people die sooner (and poor people too). In which case, youth will be served.


Do it for the sake of the children. Because, I really don't want to think about how guilty I am in all of this.


Far from being a classic struggle of special interests, the representation of younger and future generations depends on the informed selflessness of their elders. Older generations must allow Congress to fix Social Security. Much can be achieved through practical changes that need not affect those in or near retirement.


Far from being a classic struggle of class war fare, the representation of younger and future generations depends on the informed selflessness of their elders. So, all you old people, move to the most polluted states, like Texas, where you can die sooner. All you black people, commit more crimes so you can be imprisoned, impoverished, and die younger, and not be such a burden on the system.


The larger and more urgent task is health reform. In the interests of effective cost control, Medicare beneficiaries in particular must be prepared to embrace sensible limits on the way their health care is provided. Halting runaway medical inflation represents a potential victory for all generations.


The larger and more urgent task is health reform. While it's very important that big pharma remain as profitable as it has become, and that health insurance companies remain viable, because they employ three million people, we can't continue to spend so much money on old folks.


Our country must recognize that an overreliance on taxation poses real economic risks. We cannot grow our way out of this budget challenge. Yet its magnitude is such that we cannot hope to meet it without creating new wealth.


Our country must never recognize that relying on taxes for government programs poses real economic risks. We cannot spend our way out of this budget challenge. Yet its magnitude is such that we cannot hope to meet it -- because we cannot create new wealth. We can only accelerate the accumulation of old wealth.


The impressive involvement of young Americans in this presidential election provides a golden opportunity for our next president to face this dilemma -- and to cast aside political orthodoxy in fashioning a bipartisan agenda of reform. Anything less risks undermining the noble experiment that began 232 years ago.


The impressive involvement of young Americans in this presidential election provides a golden example of P.T. Barnum's old saying - there's a sucker born every minute. And a golden opportunity for our next president to face this dilemma -- and to cast aside political orthodoxy in fashioning a bipartisan agenda of reform. And if, heaven help U.S., if the next President is a Democrat, let me define bipartisan: bipartisan means that what the Republican party wants, the Republican party gets, otherwise, they will shut down the legislative branches of Congress, going nuclear, if they must.

Anything less risks undermining the noble experiment that began almost 8 years ago, when my fellow justices and I decided (albeit to my later regret) that the nation had had enough of Clinton (and by extension, Gore was Clinton) and needed more shrub.

Anything less, and I might have to feel responsible, in part, for some of this.


Sandra Day O'Connor served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1981 to 2006. James R. Jones was ambassador to Mexico from 1993 to 1997. They are honorary co-chairs of the Youth Entitlement Summit.


Qui Tam

Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC, in his jeremiad War is a Racket writes about war-time profiteering:

The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits – ah! that is another matter – twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent – the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let's get it.


Of course, it isn't put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and "we must all put our shoulders to the wheel," but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket – and are safely pocketed.


... here's how some of the other patriotic industrialists and speculators chiseled their way into war profits.


Take the shoe people. They like war. It brings business with abnormal profits. They made huge profits on sales abroad to our allies. Perhaps, like the munitions manufacturers and armament makers, they also sold to the enemy. For a dollar is a dollar whether it comes from Germany or from France. But they did well by Uncle Sam too. For instance, they sold Uncle Sam 35,000,000 pairs of hobnailed service shoes. There were 4,000,000 soldiers. Eight pairs, and more, to a soldier. My regiment during the war had only one pair to a soldier. Some of these shoes probably are still in existence. They were good shoes. But when the war was over Uncle Sam has a matter of 25,000,000 pairs left over. Bought – and paid for. Profits recorded and pocketed.


There was still lots of leather left. So the leather people sold your Uncle Sam hundreds of thousands of McClellan saddles for the cavalry. But there wasn't any American cavalry overseas! Somebody had to get rid of this leather, however. Somebody had to make a profit in it – so we had a lot of McClellan saddles. And we probably have those yet.





Having recently read Butler's scathing indictment of war, this informative Truthout article about Iraq-war contractor fraud suits suggests that we the people won't get the full story for many years:


Under the False Claims Act, a civil war era law, when an employee of a company thinks they have evidence that their company is defrauding the US government, the individual can file a lawsuit on behalf of the government against the contractor by filing a special lawsuit called a qui tam - a Latin abbreviation for "he who sues in this matter for the king as for himself."

...

Not a single qui tam case against war contractors has been joined by the Bush administration DOJ despite the possibility of recovering billions of dollars for the US taxpayer and reining in war profiteers, who continue to cheat and defraud the government and the US troops mired in battle.

...

A unique factor in qui tam suits is that even if the cases are unsuccessful or companies settle the lawsuits to avoid trial, the facts of the case are eventually made public. Therefore, the historical record on the most privatized military operation in US history has only begun to be written.


...

These qui tam cases must eventually be dealt with because the statute of limitations - the amount of time whistleblowers have to file their case - does not run out once the case has been filed. Whistleblowers have up to six years (if acting without DOJ backing) to file a qui tam case. This means that cases involving Iraq reconstruction fraud will continue to pile up for years after the last contractors leave the country.


...

"The administration is protecting its donor base - big pharmaceutical companies, big defense contractors, and they don't care about the little guy, the tax payer," [Don] Warren [a specialist in Qui Tam cases] said when asked why he thought the Bush administration would deliberately underfund white collar crime investigations.


"It doesn't make sense. Thirteen dollars is returned to the US treasury for every dollar spent on these prosecutions. It is the only government program that pays for itself 13 times over," he said.




Saturday, June 14, 2008

Exxon: not enough profit in U.S. retail gas operations

I have to feel real sorry for the poor folks at Exxon (and their competitors like Royal Dutch Shell and BP Plc):


Exxon Mobil Corp said on Thursday it is getting out of the retail gas business in the United States as sky-high crude oil prices squeeze margins.

...

"We are in a very, very challenging market. Margins are reduced," said Nair. "We feel the best way for us to grow and compete is through our distributor network."


In the current environment, the company's profits from its retail unit are "somewhere close to a rounding error," said Mark Gilman, an analyst at the Benchmark Co.


He said Exxon was following competitors like Royal Dutch Shell and BP Plc in moving away from ownership of service stations.


"The retail gasoline business is a highly volatile and typically low return kind of business and thus the decision," Gilman said.


Exxon made more than $40 billion in 2007, most of which came from its oil and gas production around the world.


"I think the decision came that it's more of a headache than its worth," said Oppenheimer & Co analyst Fadel Gheit.



Although the company does not release profit margin figures for its retail arm, Gheit estimated the stations' margin was between 10 percent and 15 percent, about one-third its margin on crude oil production.


MG - this would make the margin on crude oil production 30% - 45% so, apparently, they will sell their stations to SOMEBODY or SOMETHING who will be satisfied with a 10-15% margin? or not. If not, then that somebody or something would apparently have to increase the prices to raise the profits.

MG - but how real is PEAK OIL? If peak oil is a reality, and the world is at or past PEAK, then the future of running the gas stations is grim. And it makes much good sense to unload them to some sucker at an inflated price because as less and less oil is produced, less and less gasoline will be available, and more and more stations will have to close.




Friday, June 13, 2008

Time to get back

Paul Krugman discusses how the current administration has pulled the US back into a time when American-produced food was NOT safe and when muck-raking journalists told the story. Here's an incredible paragraph from Krugman's NYT column:

One amazing decision came in 2004, when a Kansas producer asked [the U.S. Department of Agriculture] for permission to test its own cows, so that it could resume exports to Japan. You might have expected the Bush administration to applaud this example of self-regulation. But permission was denied, because other beef producers feared consumer demands that they follow suit.


The Bush administration has forced hundreds of dedicated civil servants out of their jobs and replaced them with ideological hacks (and legacy appointees). There's a lot of damage to be undone.

Mother earth will swallow you

From Wikipedia, some of global warmings affects:

Increasing global temperature ... is expected to increase the intensity of extreme weather events and to change the amount and pattern of precipitation.


MSNBC reports from Iowa:

Dave Koch, a spokesman for the Cedar Rapids fire department, said the river will crest Friday at about 31.8 feet. It was at 30.9 feet early in the morning. In a 1993 flood, considered the worst flood in recent history, it was at 19.27 feet.

"We are seeing a historic hydrological event taking place with unprecedented river levels occurring," added Brian Pierce, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Davenport. "We're in uncharted territory — this is an event beyond what anybody could even imagine."


(update - 30 June, 2008)

This editorial cartoon does not draw a direct link between global warming and "natural" disasters. But how much of a stretch is it?

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Craving for real nobility

Care to guess the identity of the red-haired maven who typed this paragraph for the NYT:


In a culture obsessed with entertainment, celebrity, buzz, spin, market share, synergy, gestures, decaf skim lattes and cigar bars, we feel diminished and puny. We have developed a craving for real nobility, large principles, passions with scale and profound commitments.



That would be the same cracked pot who yesterday predicted wife-bashing of yet another Presidential candidate is about to begin:


It’s good news for Obama that Hillary’s out of the race. But it’s also bad news. Now Republicans can turn their full attention to demonizing Michelle Obama. Mrs. Obama is the new, unwilling contestant in Round Two of the sulfurous national game of “Kill the witch.”

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Obsequiousness to AIPAC



From the Common Dreams web site, Chris Hedges sharply criticizes Obama's speech to AIPAC and suggests a course of events that would follow air strikes on Iran:


Obama went on to blame the Palestinians for the conflict, although the ratio of Palestinians to Israelis killed in 2007 was 40 to 1. This is an increase from 30 to 1 in 2006 and 4 to 1 in 2000-2005.


Obama’s stance is the moral equivalent of assuring the Johannesburg government during the apartheid era that one would support their repressive efforts to punish the restive blacks in the townships.


The deterioration of the conflict in Israel, which would be accelerated by airstrikes on Iran and an ensuring regional war, will propel us into the Armageddon-type scenario in the Middle East relished by the lunatic fringes of the radical Christian right. And so, with Obama’s enthusiastic endorsement, we barrel toward a Dr. Strangelove self-immolation. No one will be able to say we did not go out with a spectacular show of firepower, gore and death. Our European and Middle Eastern allies, who are numb with consternation over our death spiral, are frantically trying to reach out to Tehran diplomatically.


” … There is no greater threat to Israel or peace than Iran,” Obama assured AIPAC. “This audience is made up of both Republicans and Democrats. And the enemies of Israel should have no doubt that regardless of party, Americans stand shoulder to shoulder in support of Israel’s security. … The Iran regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and … its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. … [M]y goal will be to eliminate this threat.”


Barack Obama, when we need sane leadership the most, has proved feckless and weak. He, and the Democratic leadership, is as morally bankrupt as those preparing to ignite our funeral pyre in the Middle East.


Writing at Counterpunch, former U.S. Senator James G. Abourezk is also quite critical:


It was left to Barack Obama, a candidate who at one time brought a great deal of hope to many Americans, including this writer, to complete the round robin of pandering to AIPAC, first by wearing not only an American flag pin, but one conjoined with an Israeli flag pin as well. Obama’s nomination has improved America’s image around the world, with the realization that, “everyone has a chance in America,” as the saying used to go. But that is what makes his pandering so painful.

...

Over the years U.S. politicians have considered unqualified statements of support for Israel’s objectives to be a throwaway, that is, no political cost and all political benefit for the politician. But those days are forever gone, and the danger of increased violence in the Middle East is much higher than the threat level announced in the nations’ airports close to election time.

...

One would have hoped that Barack Obama would have taken note of the destruction left in the wake of what George Bush thought would be a benign invasion of Iraq, and not try to repeat this kind of mischief with repercussions so serious that the Middle East is on the verge of destabilization.





Monday, June 9, 2008

Not at all astonishing


Fabius Maximus comments on "our" surprise at Muqtada Al-Sadr's popularity and power in Iraq. Some things are really not that difficult to understand:


We invade Iraq, build a chain of large, permanent bases, press for an oil law more foreigner-friendly than Canada’s — and are astonished that a nationalistic leader arises to oppose us?

Prescience

Bob Somersby who writes the incomparable Daily Howler blog has a long memory. In today's column, he returns to a Washington Post article written by Katherine Seelye on July 14, 2000:

“Governor Bush wants to do for America what he's done for Texas—go to Washington and spend our surplus and then more for budget-busting tax cuts, and hope then that somehow it will all add up," Mr. Gore asserted. "The last thing this country needs is an era of Bush economics that brings us back to deficits, high interest rates and high unemployment."

Those who might argue that we don't have high interest rates and high unemployment should direct their attention to the Shadow Government Statistics website which estimates unemployment to be about 14% (as of June 6, 2008) and an inflation rate of about 11.5% (as of May 14, 2008).